Joe Biden needs to go. I am sorry but I am not usually political but this guy is ridiculous
This started two years into the Trump administration.
Sure did! Biden erased many of Trump's initiatives.
- Why not this one?!
- What's the angle?
- Does the administration hate Apple that much that they are looking for Any reason to knock an American company?
I appreciate the perspective of nudging Apple to change, but the ridiculous part is using a lawsuit to extract - what? extraction concessions? extract cash? - from Apple.
Why not this one? Maybe because the executive branch should not attempt to interfere with the judicial branch. Biden would be rightly criticized if he did attempt to interfere. Let the lawsuit play out on its merits, or lack thereof.
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
The inherent problem is that Apple makes too much profit. Owners of iPhones spend 2x to 4x more with their phones than competitors. Any remedy that does not change this will not be satisfactory to any of Apple’s competitors or developers.
The reasons for why Apple should be regulated is basically made up using novel judgements, which often doesn’t have to make sense. Remember, the DOJ has had 6 years to do this. It’s only in the past 3 to 6 months the DOJ has had any reasonable shot at declaring that Apple is a monopoly, and they still have to game it by saying “performance smartphones”. That’s barely wider than saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.
The inherent issue with SMS, MMS and RCS isn’t that Apple doesn’t implement them. It’s that no third party can access them. If Apple implements RCS, it doesn’t solve anything as they will not allow another messaging service to use it. Nothing will change if RCS only works with Apple Messages app.
3rd party messaging apps want to be SMS, MMS clients on the iPhone. They also want to be a client for phone calls too. There are obvious reasons why no consumer should ever want this ever. I repeat, you never ever want a 3rd party app to be a client for your phone, SMS, MMS nor RCS messages.
If it truly was about RCS, an anti-trust suit against Apple is dumb shit way to remedy it. The gov’t can just have the FCC mandate that the GSMA RCS universal protocol be supported by all phones connected to US cellular networks. Within about a couple of years, every phone will support it. They don’t do that surely because it involves some company with good lobbyists losing a revenue stream somewhere.
The USA gov’t can’t address robocalls which is a clear and present nuisance, if not outright danger, to every American with a phone number.
"There is no legal requirement, anywhere, that Apple needs to make applications to assist with third-party integrations of smartwatches. This is up to the integrators. And, the key integrators, Google and Samsung, have chosen to not do so for reasons only known to themselves."
This is the thing. Why should Apple be forced to make an inferior, less secure product just so it's compatible with Android, or any other app or OS? They shouldn't.
As the article says this whole case against Apple seems poorly thought out, and not based on facts nor law, but jealously and envy. It appears to me the DOJ has seen the EU dubiously scrape a couple billion off of Apple, and it wants some of those sweet. sweet Apple profits too.
What a waste of time, resources, and tax payer money.
You know what this is about, don't you? It's not about justice - it's about getting Apple to tow the Big Tech / DOJ / White House line.
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
The inherent problem is that Apple makes too much profit. Owners of iPhones spend 2x to 4x more with their phones than competitors. Any remedy that does not change this will not be satisfactory to any of Apple’s competitors or developers.
The reasons for why Apple should be regulated is basically made up using novel judgements, which often doesn’t have to make sense. Remember, the DOJ has had 6 years to do this. It’s only in the past 3 to 6 months the DOJ has had any reasonable shot at declaring that Apple is a monopoly, and they still have to game it by saying “performance smartphones”. That’s barely wider than saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.
The inherent issue with SMS, MMS and RCS isn’t that Apple doesn’t implement them. It’s that no third party can access them. If Apple implements RCS, it doesn’t solve anything as they will not allow another messaging service to use it. Nothing will change if RCS only works with Apple Messages app.
3rd party messaging apps want to be SMS, MMS clients on the iPhone. They also want to be a client for phone calls too. There are obvious reasons why no consumer should ever want this ever. I repeat, you never ever want a 3rd party app to be a client for your phone, SMS, MMS nor RCS messages.
If it truly was about RCS, an anti-trust suit against Apple is dumb shit way to remedy it. The gov’t can just have the FCC mandate that the GSMA RCS universal protocol be supported by all phones connected to US cellular networks. Within about a couple of years, every phone will support it. They don’t do that surely because it involves some company with good lobbyists losing a revenue stream somewhere.
The USA gov’t can’t address robocalls which is a clear and present nuisance, if not outright danger, to every American with a phone number.
That is not true . There are Samsung and Huawei phones more expensive than IPhone. And the cheaper phones you are talking about use cheap components .
So by your logic, BMW cars cannot be more expensive than cheap some GM cars? Conversely, there are GM cars more expensive than BMWs?
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
If only Apple had a few actual lawyers and stuff.
Couple of thoughts, it isn’t Apple’s lawyers that AppleInsider is quoting. I doubt that Apple’s lawyer's see this as this simple or are so cavalier. Further, Apple couldn’t win a case where Cook made statements on a QER which is typically covered by a catch all disclaimer that is almost lawsuit proof and paid out close to a half billion dollars that AppleInsider then blew off as insignificant. They couldn’t hold off the EU regulations and also just got hit with a 1.84B Euro fine. Their brilliant legal minds also sued a tiny company with a pear logo and ended up having to help redesign their logo given the public blowback. They lost the Apple Watch case and settled with Qualcomm. This is their top notch legal team that they are bringing to this fight?
The EU if you noticed, generally only goes after American Companies and never their own companies.
Greensill, Wirecard AG are two examples where they didn’t just go after companies, but shut them down. Glencore they heavily fined for taking bribes. That aside, the reason they probably do is that American companies could be coming in thinking they can do whatever they want while most EU companies are playing by the rules? You just made my point. Those companies are not Google or Apple. Also Notice the EU never does anything bs China,….
Your point was that the EU generally only goes after American companies. That is not true. I gave you three examples where you were wrong. Not sure how that “makes your point”. As for China, they have put limits on Huawei 5G equipment so one can hardly say it “never does anything” against Chinese firms (your sentence was a little vague so I could be misquoting you there.)
Talk to me when EU goes after the biggest Chinese company or their own biggest company. Or you think the Chinese companies or Biggest European companies are just angels compared to Apple Evil Empire.
Please, it quite obvious EU has no fear of any repercussions from American leadership when they attack American companies that they would get of it’s a Chinese company or big European companies
Here you go with your opinions as facts - “quite obvious” The only thing that is becoming obvious to me it that you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
We’ve all read this « analysis » before. last time when the European commission would fail at making Apply comply to antitrust laws. Remind me, who got « crushed » (crushed, really)
Alternatively, you can read the piece before commenting.
I did. reminds me of the bravado of Dilger before the facts proved him wrong (again)
Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.
Apple only converted to USB-C after the EU passed the law in 2022 and companies affect have until the end of 2024 to comply. Apple never promised to use USB-C ....... 10 years ago. And they never promised to use USB Micro 15 years ago. That's all in your imagination because of the way you twist the facts or a reading comprehension problem.
The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging. Which Apple did, rather than to replace their 30pin connector. There was no way that USB Micro connector can replace all the functions of their 30 pin connector. And it would make absolutely no sense to add a USB Micro port on iPhones, just for charging. Apple would not have signed the agreement if it meant replacing the port on iPhones with a USB Micro or USB-C.
The agreement also allowed for innovation. Telecom were not restricted from using better developed technology. This allowed for the standard to change from USB Micro to USB-C. If it weren't for this, USB-Micro would still be the standard. In 2009, Apple already had plans to replace their nearly 10 year old 30 pin connector with their Lightening connector, in 2012. Two years before USB-C specs were finalized. iPhones with Lightning connectors were probably already being designed in 2009, for release 2 to 3 years out. And the Lightening connector adhere to the USB charging standards and any USB Micro charger (with the correct adapter), can be used to charge iPhones and iPads.
In wasn't until 2022, that the EU mandated that all mobile devices use a USB-C port. Until then, the agreement signed by most of the telecoms in 2009, only required that mobile devices use a USB charger (with either a Micro or C connector) for charging. No where did the 2009 agreement state that the port on the device must be a USB Micro or USB-C. This agreement was to standardize the charger, not the port on the device. As long as the device adopt the USB charging standard, the port on the device didn't matter, so long as it could be adapted to use a standard USB Micro (and later USB -C.) charger. By 2022, the lightening was already 10 years old technology and falling way behind USB3.2 specs. Apple probably already had plans on using USB-C but had to move up their plans because of the new EU law that passed in 2022.
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
The inherent problem is that Apple makes too much profit. Owners of iPhones spend 2x to 4x more with their phones than competitors. Any remedy that does not change this will not be satisfactory to any of Apple’s competitors or developers.
The reasons for why Apple should be regulated is basically made up using novel judgements, which often doesn’t have to make sense. Remember, the DOJ has had 6 years to do this. It’s only in the past 3 to 6 months the DOJ has had any reasonable shot at declaring that Apple is a monopoly, and they still have to game it by saying “performance smartphones”. That’s barely wider than saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.
The inherent issue with SMS, MMS and RCS isn’t that Apple doesn’t implement them. It’s that no third party can access them. If Apple implements RCS, it doesn’t solve anything as they will not allow another messaging service to use it. Nothing will change if RCS only works with Apple Messages app.
3rd party messaging apps want to be SMS, MMS clients on the iPhone. They also want to be a client for phone calls too. There are obvious reasons why no consumer should ever want this ever. I repeat, you never ever want a 3rd party app to be a client for your phone, SMS, MMS nor RCS messages.
If it truly was about RCS, an anti-trust suit against Apple is dumb shit way to remedy it. The gov’t can just have the FCC mandate that the GSMA RCS universal protocol be supported by all phones connected to US cellular networks. Within about a couple of years, every phone will support it. They don’t do that surely because it involves some company with good lobbyists losing a revenue stream somewhere.
The USA gov’t can’t address robocalls which is a clear and present nuisance, if not outright danger, to every American with a phone number.
That is not true . There are Samsung and Huawei phones more expensive than IPhone. And the cheaper phones you are talking about use cheap components .
So by your logic, BMW cars cannot be more expensive than cheap some GM cars? Conversely, there are GM cars more expensive than BMWs?
FYI- The price of the device is not always an indication on how much profit is made from its sale. The price of the device only matters when revenue is concern. I'm willing to bet that Apple makes much more profit from the sale of a $1000 iPhone than Samsung on the sale of their $2000 folding screen phone.
Plus, how much profit do Samsung makes after the sale of of their mobile device, compare to how much Apple makes. For example, with Samsung, nearly all the profits made from the commission on IAP in games played on Samsung phones, goes to Google. While Apple gets the commission from the IAP in games played on iPhones.
Joe Biden needs to go. I am sorry but I am not usually political but this guy is ridiculous
This started two years into the Trump administration.
But it continued with Biden and the Biden administration ok’d the continuation and ultimately the initiation of legal action.
Yup. This too is addressed in the text, from the start, which the previous poster chose to ignore when he made his post.
FTA: "This didn't start under the Biden administration, it started in the ending years of the Trump one. It is, however, a tent-pole of what the Biden administration promised to do in the beginning to big tech. And, this is all going to take years where political winds may change. It may not survive a Trump administration, and could easily outlast a second Biden term too."
Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.
Apple only converted to USB-C after the EU passed the law in 2022 and companies affect have until the end of 2024 to comply. Apple never promised to use USB-C ....... 10 years ago. And they never promised to use USB Micro 15 years ago. That's all in your imagination because of the way you twist the facts or a reading comprehension problem.
The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging. Which Apple did, rather than to replace their 30pin connector. There was no way that USB Micro connector can replace all the functions of their 30 pin connector. And it would make absolutely no sense to add a USB Micro port on iPhones, just for charging. Apple would not have signed the agreement if it meant replacing the port on iPhones with a USB Micro or USB-C.
The agreement also allowed for innovation. Telecom were not restricted from using better developed technology. This allowed for the standard to change from USB Micro to USB-C. If it weren't for this, USB-Micro would still be the standard. In 2009, Apple already had plans to replace their nearly 10 year old 30 pin connector with their Lightening connector, in 2012. Two years before USB-C specs were finalized. iPhones with Lightning connectors were probably already being designed in 2009, for release 2 to 3 years out. And the Lightening connector adhere to the USB charging standards and any USB Micro charger (with the correct adapter), can be used to charge iPhones and iPads.
In wasn't until 2022, that the EU mandated that all mobile devices use a USB-C port. Until then, the agreement signed by most of the telecoms in 2009, only required that mobile devices use a USB charger (with either a Micro or C connector) for charging. No where did the 2009 agreement state that the port on the device must be a USB Micro or USB-C. This agreement was to standardize the charger, not the port on the device. As long as the device adopt the USB charging standard, the port on the device didn't matter, so long as it could be adapted to use a standard USB Micro (and later USB -C.) charger. By 2022, the lightening was already 10 years old technology and falling way behind USB3.2 specs. Apple probably already had plans on using USB-C but had to move up their plans because of the new EU law that passed in 2022.
"The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging"
'Malicious Compliance' jumps to mind here. LOL.
The MoU didn't only concern the charger. Most of the texts from the period used the term 'common interface' and specifically mentioned micro-USB.
Putting a dongle into the equation does not really cut it and Apple never helped resolve the problem the EU wanted to tackle.
The MoU in no way shape or form meant that today we would have been stuck with micro-USB.
Fast forward to now and we have legislation as a direct result of industry not doing enough.
The directive is up for review in four years to see how it is progressing and perhaps take on the subject of wireless charging.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
If only Apple had a few actual lawyers and stuff.
Couple of thoughts, it isn’t Apple’s lawyers that AppleInsider is quoting. I doubt that Apple’s lawyer's see this as this simple or are so cavalier. Further, Apple couldn’t win a case where Cook made statements on a QER which is typically covered by a catch all disclaimer that is almost lawsuit proof and paid out close to a half billion dollars that AppleInsider then blew off as insignificant. They couldn’t hold off the EU regulations and also just got hit with a 1.84B Euro fine. Their brilliant legal minds also sued a tiny company with a pear logo and ended up having to help redesign their logo given the public blowback. They lost the Apple Watch case and settled with Qualcomm. This is their top notch legal team that they are bringing to this fight?
The EU if you noticed, generally only goes after American Companies and never their own companies.
'Never their own companies'?
The vast majority of fines are for EU companies.
Apple got away with its practices for a decade according to the EU. How is that going after US companies?
There were complaints. Investigations were carried out. A fine was the result. Although Apple will appeal.
In the so called digital era the first movers enjoy accumulated advantages of that status which they have used to stifle, or outright eliminate, competition.
There were calls from many here for Apple to pull out of the EU, I suppose as some kind of punishment to the EU.
Here we have a similar situation to that of the EU yet those same voices are not demanding Apple pull out of the country in protest.
Apple having made concessions over the years to reduce the impact of its practices shouldn't be enough for it to say 'we're innocent and only have our customers' best interests at heart'.
As the first movers grew, so did the negative impact of their practices.
That situation should still have the legal spotlight put on it and hopefully see new legislation come through to specifically deal with it.
It will be interesting to see the defence Apple puts forward and hopefully we will be able to learn of more of the behind the scenes communications that led to certain practices coming into play.
The legal result of this process is perhaps of less interest, as the true end result (in broader terms) could 'open up the melon' and lead to much needed market change.
"There is no legal requirement, anywhere, that Apple needs to make applications to assist with third-party integrations of smartwatches. This is up to the integrators. And, the key integrators, Google and Samsung, have chosen to not do so for reasons only known to themselves."
This is the thing. Why should Apple be forced to make an inferior, less secure product just so it's compatible with Android, or any other app or OS? They shouldn't.
As the article says this whole case against Apple seems poorly thought out, and not based on facts nor law, but jealously and envy. It appears to me the DOJ has seen the EU dubiously scrape a couple billion off of Apple, and it wants some of those sweet. sweet Apple profits too.
What a waste of time, resources, and tax payer money.
You know what this is about, don't you? It's not about justice - it's about getting Apple to tow the Big Tech / DOJ / White House line.
Without speaking on the merits of DOJ's case, about which I know little to nothing, if Apple violated the law then, they're still liable for those violations, irrespective of what they've done to fix them since. You don't get a free pass on past crimes just because you've stopped doing those crimes. Again, I have no knowledge or opinion on the DOJ's case, it's just that the notion that Apple made the case moot because it has fixed their issues seems a little silly to me.
The head of the DOJ was appointed by Biden in 2021...... This lawsuit even mentioned "equity" in the verbal statements on their site and issue with blue vs green bubbles..lol This has nothing to do with Trump. The Biden administration fights for China interests and China will be the winner since they manufacture all the competitors.
Joe Biden needs to go. I am sorry but I am not usually political but this guy is ridiculous
The Sherman Act has been the law in the US for over 130 years. There is an enormous quantity of case law that has been established since then including cases with AT&T and IBM. I am sure that Apple has had for a very long time a group of specialists in their legal team that are immersed in this antitrust law that has advised the chief executives on how their business practices will bump up against the law. This should be no surprise for them.
We’ve all read this « analysis » before. last time when the European commission would fail at making Apply comply to antitrust laws. Remind me, who got « crushed » (crushed, really)
Apple have complied with the law in Europe.
In the Ireland tax case the EU changed the law after the fact by re-defining key terms then went after Ireland for breaking it during the time before they changed it. All to try to get more tax from Apple. The EU lost, then appealed.
The DMA is a new law that has just gone into effect - Apple will have to comply but some parts of the EU’s enforcement of the new law might end up being challenged in court because the law is so badly written that the EU is having to require Apple to follow “the spirit of it” not the words, which is ambiguous and can mean anything.
Apple have been found to break (not by a court but by a political body) in the case of the recent fine for not letting Spotify link out to alternative payments on the web. Only the fact is that Apple does let Spotify link out under the reader app rule. Spotify has chosen not to in order to fabricate an anti-trust claim and the EU fell for it. Apple will obviously win this one in court.
Comments
3rd party messaging apps want to be SMS, MMS clients on the iPhone. They also want to be a client for phone calls too. There are obvious reasons why no consumer should ever want this ever. I repeat, you never ever want a 3rd party app to be a client for your phone, SMS, MMS nor RCS messages.
So by your logic, BMW cars cannot be more expensive than cheap some GM cars? Conversely, there are GM cars more expensive than BMWs?
reminds me of the bravado of Dilger before the facts proved him wrong (again)
'Malicious Compliance' jumps to mind here. LOL.
The MoU didn't only concern the charger. Most of the texts from the period used the term 'common interface' and specifically mentioned micro-USB.
Putting a dongle into the equation does not really cut it and Apple never helped resolve the problem the EU wanted to tackle.
The MoU in no way shape or form meant that today we would have been stuck with micro-USB.
Fast forward to now and we have legislation as a direct result of industry not doing enough.
The directive is up for review in four years to see how it is progressing and perhaps take on the subject of wireless charging.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_09_301
The vast majority of fines are for EU companies.
Apple got away with its practices for a decade according to the EU. How is that going after US companies?
There were complaints. Investigations were carried out. A fine was the result. Although Apple will appeal.
In the so called digital era the first movers enjoy accumulated advantages of that status which they have used to stifle, or outright eliminate, competition.
There were calls from many here for Apple to pull out of the EU, I suppose as some kind of punishment to the EU.
Here we have a similar situation to that of the EU yet those same voices are not demanding Apple pull out of the country in protest.
Apple having made concessions over the years to reduce the impact of its practices shouldn't be enough for it to say 'we're innocent and only have our customers' best interests at heart'.
As the first movers grew, so did the negative impact of their practices.
That situation should still have the legal spotlight put on it and hopefully see new legislation come through to specifically deal with it.
It will be interesting to see the defence Apple puts forward and hopefully we will be able to learn of more of the behind the scenes communications that led to certain practices coming into play.
The legal result of this process is perhaps of less interest, as the true end result (in broader terms) could 'open up the melon' and lead to much needed market change.
My opinion still remais, if Apple products are so bad like everyone likes to say, JUST BUY Android.
I don't see why this is even being discussed.
People buy into the Apple ecosystem, it's a feature, not a flaw.
I think not!!!
This suit isn't only about what Apple is doing, it's also about what they have done!!!
In the Ireland tax case the EU changed the law after the fact by re-defining key terms then went after Ireland for breaking it during the time before they changed it. All to try to get more tax from Apple. The EU lost, then appealed.
The DMA is a new law that has just gone into effect - Apple will have to comply but some parts of the EU’s enforcement of the new law might end up being challenged in court because the law is so badly written that the EU is having to require Apple to follow “the spirit of it” not the words, which is ambiguous and can mean anything.
Apple have been found to break (not by a court but by a political body) in the case of the recent fine for not letting Spotify link out to alternative payments on the web. Only the fact is that Apple does let Spotify link out under the reader app rule. Spotify has chosen not to in order to fabricate an anti-trust claim and the EU fell for it. Apple will obviously win this one in court.